Mike62 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) I would like statistical data to see what the general IDPA membership thinks of the proposed change. Edited August 16, 2016 by Mike62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S391 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 What if we truly don't care one way or the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvability Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Top-down governance - we love it - why ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADulay Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 10 minutes ago, S391 said: What if we truly don't care one way or the other? Ditto. AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, Solvability said: Top-down governance - we love it - why ask? Good point. Though, I know I'd still like to see how many folks are for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) I just joined IDPA about three months ago. I paid for the 3yr membership. I wonder if they'd give me a refund on two of those years? Doubt it!.... Ha ha It seems like this is to satisfy memebers who, for whatever reason, can't shoot fast. I'd bet the majority of the IDPA members fall in this group. They can probably shoot accurately but not fast. So, they end up getting beat by faster shooters. I predict IDPA will have a severe slump in memeber ship renewels in the next year or two. Three years from now, after they've lost a lot of the good competition to USPSA (what's left) they'll go amend this rule. It'll end up being where it should have been with this change. Points down don't equal 1 sec but misses and no shoots are penalized more. Edited August 16, 2016 by B_RAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmanCdp Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 lol..suck it up and shoot fast and accurate.. All I see are shooters commenting about worrying about scaring off new shooters.. Practice or keep coming in last all the time.. Or if you are happy coming in last then tell all of the other shooters to ... well you know.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f2benny Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 It will change the game a bit that's true. I think they are trying to distinguish uspsa a bit as the speed shooting sport vs them being accuracy based.Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) 39 minutes ago, GmanCdp said: lol..suck it up and shoot fast and accurate.. All I see are shooters commenting about worrying about scaring off new shooters.. Practice or keep coming in last all the time.. Or if you are happy coming in last then tell all of the other shooters to ... well you know.. I'm not trying to argue here. Nor am I trying to boast. I've been shooting IDPA for about 3 months. Mostly at weekly small indoor matches. I've shot a couple of monthly club matches too (6 or so stages). I've also shot one classifier. I finish near the top everytime. Top three overall usually. The others in the top are EX or MA shooters and we're always within a couple of points of each other. I have the higher score about 50% of the time. I classified 1 pt from expert. So, I'm a SS (SSP) for now but I'm confident in the month since I classified I've improved a lot. I feel that I'd be close to MA now. At least on the classifier. Last weekend I shot my first USPSA match and won Production. The next highest shooter in that class was a B. I beat him by 10 pts. The only shooters that beat me overall were 2A shooters in open and one MA in limited. So,...while I'm no where near the top of my potential or even on the same planet as the pros, I'm above average. So, as I get better, I'm gonna separate further from the average shooters too. I just think this is to cater to older shooters. Which I believe to be the majority of the IDPA memebership. Sorry,. Not trying to be rude. From what I've seen, the faster more talented shooters are not the majority at the IDPA matches I've been to. Now, I am new to the whole shooting sports. So, I very well could be so far off base, that's it's not even funny! Edited August 16, 2016 by B_RAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike62 Posted August 16, 2016 Author Share Posted August 16, 2016 1 hour ago, S391 said: What if we truly don't care one way or the other? I added a choice for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S391 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 7 minutes ago, Mike62 said: I added a choice for that. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowdyb Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 most the people i run into who like the idea are also the same people who prefer paper scoring and think computers are scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooke Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) And the same ones who put in a compact pistol division instead of an optical sight division. Screw the technological advancements, fracture the current divisions so we can have more winners. I agree with the empirical observation that IDPA shooters are concentrated in the older crowd. Trust me I qualify as older...much older...and I hate the 1 sec rule change. ( I also favored the red dot inclusion because it helped with reduced visual ability). This a freaking game and if it helps people with anything practical, it is to shoot both fast and accurately. Now the pendulum swings to accuracy over speed. 10 down for Mikes and no-shoots, leave the rest of scoring alone...........oops, too late! Edited August 17, 2016 by Brooke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cerealbyter Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 It really doesn't matter either way. It's like prison, the top will still be the top, the bottom will still be the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Brooke said: I agree with the empirical observation that IDPA shooters are concentrated in the older crowd. That is a fact. The average age for an IDPA competitor is 51. http://nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_IDPA.pdf Many/most people "my" age tend to be conformists and will simply go along with the proposed changes without much drama and/or ineffective screaming. Also, less than 31% of the respondents in that survey shot IDPA for competitive reasons. Hmmm.. Edited August 17, 2016 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racknrider Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 I guess if 70% shoot for non competition reasons, then at least 70% won't care about the rules changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, racknrider said: I guess if 70% shoot for non competition reasons, then at least 70% won't care about the rules changes. I would guess that number is probably accurate overall, although the poll here may not reflect it. Some seniors don't like change at all, so that may factor in also. Edited August 17, 2016 by BillR1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Less Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 Kinda like this proposed change... Makes the "risk" element a little more interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeidaho Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 7 hours ago, BillR1 said: I would guess that number is probably accurate overall, although the poll here may not reflect it. Some seniors don't like change at all, so that may factor in also. Not too many of the 25000 IDPA members belong to BEnos, and even fewer are active in this thead. Just saying this is hardly a random sample of IDPA shooters, which it would have to be, for the results to be meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD45 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 They could care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooke Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 6 hours ago, freeidaho said: Not too many of the 25000 IDPA members belong to BEnos, and even fewer are active in this thead. Just saying this is hardly a random sample of IDPA shooters, which it would have to be, for the results to be meaningful. That is probably true, but the ones here are at least involved, presumably competitive minded, and knowledgable about the rules. That means they can accurately project the effects of rule changes. On the other hand, IDPA could have made the change proposal public and requested comments. That would have given them some reasonable data as to the feelings of members. Still very few members would have responded because they just shoot for the hell of it. The opinions of those folks is not important anyway. I find the comment above about nearly 70% of IDPA shooters do not shoot for competition anyway to be interesting. It squares my admittedly empirical observation that 70% of Americans don't give a damn about anything at all. So why shouldn't the 30% matter when opinions count? They are the only ones with opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Brooke said: That is probably true, but the ones here are at least involved, presumably competitive minded, and knowledgable about the rules. That means they can accurately project the effects of rule changes. Many have done the math, effects will be trivial in regard to how well you finish. Interesting to look at the numbers from the recent USPSA production nationals, if you really want to finish near the top then your speed and your accuracy must both be outstanding. If someone is fast and worried that this change will hurt him, worst case is that they are forced to fix any accuracy problems sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike62 Posted August 18, 2016 Author Share Posted August 18, 2016 9 hours ago, freeidaho said: Not too many of the 25000 IDPA members belong to BEnos, and even fewer are active in this thead. Just saying this is hardly a random sample of IDPA shooters, which it would have to be, for the results to be meaningful. This was the best avenue I could see to collect data. I agree that HQ could do a survey and invite all members to participate which would provide more accurate results. This of course would require them to care about our opinions which they clearly do not. Personally as someone who runs two major matches a year I just want them to stop changing the rules. Trying to get 40 people to work a match for a weekend is difficult enough without having to worry about them being on top of the ever changing rulebook and clarifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillR1 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 16 minutes ago, Mike62 said: This was the best avenue I could see to collect data. I agree that HQ could do a survey and invite all members to participate which would provide more accurate results. This of course would require them to care about our opinions which they clearly do not. I posted the results of an overall member survey that was done in 2014. Since a large majority (~69%) don't even shoot IDPA for competitive reasons, a rule change such as this is pretty irrelevant to most of "us". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S391 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Mike62 said: This was the best avenue I could see to collect data. I agree that HQ could do a survey and invite all members to participate which would provide more accurate results. This of course would require them to care about our opinions which they clearly do not. Personally as someone who runs two major matches a year I just want them to stop changing the rules. Trying to get 40 people to work a match for a weekend is difficult enough without having to worry about them being on top of the ever changing rulebook and clarifications. I had a long talk with Ken Hackathorn about this at the NRA convention this summer. He said that Bill Wilson wanted the 1pt = 1 second penalty right from the beginning and they first tried 1/3 of a second per point then settled on 1/2 second per point.... Yes, they could have sent out a survey and asked for people to vote (like they did with CCP or carry optics) but Bill wanted this and Bill is going to get it. I don't think it's needed but in the end the guy with the gold makes the rules...... I agree with you 100% regarding the ever changing rule book! I don't have as much time to shoot as I used to and I've stopped SO'ing because I don't have the time to stay on top of all the rule changes.... That said, I'm told they are working hard to clarify the rule book and try to make it more streamlined.... we shall see. In the end, very few, if any, of us on this board make a living as a professional shooter so I don't think the changes are going to effect any of us too much one way or the other..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now